bicycle use ordinance briefing

8/12/2019 Bicycle Use Ordinance Briefing

1/29


2/29

Presented to the Dallas City Council

June 4, 2014

Bicycle Use Ordinance


3/29

The Purpose of this briefing is to discuss potential changes to the

following ordinances in the Dallas City Code:

City of Dallas

Bicycle Use Ordinances

The all age groups bicycle helmet requirement(Sec 9-8 Dallas City Code)

The prohibition of bicycles inside public buildings(Sec 9-2 Dallas City Code)

2


4/29

Quality of Life & Environment

Committee Action On Monday, April 28, 2014, Quality of Life & Environment Committee

members requested background information on the development and adoption

of the 1996 bicycle helmet ordinance

On Monday, May 12, 2014, Quality of Life & Environment Committee received

public comment on the 1996 bicycle helmet ordinance and recommended

advancing this item to full City Council for review and possible amendment ofthe ordinances

3

Speaker In favor of removing all age

requirement?

Robin StallingsBike Texas Yes

Alex DulaneyBikeDFW Yes

Shelli Stephens-StidhamInjury Prevention

Center of Greater Dallas, Parkland Hospital

No

Shannon PageCitizen Yes

Bud MeltonBowman-Melton Associates Yes


5/29

(a) A person commits an offense if he operates or rides upon a bicycle or any side car, trailer,

child carrier, seat, or other device attached to a bicycle without wearing a helmet.

(b) A parent or guardian of a minor commits an offense if he knowingly causes or permits, or

by insufficient control allows, the minor to operate or ride upon a bicycle or any side car,

trailer, child carrier, seat, or other device attached to a bicycle, without the minor wearinga helmet.

(c) A person commits an offense if he transports another person upon a bicycle or any side

car, trailer, child carrier, seat, or other device attached to a bicycle, without the other

person wearing a helmet.

(d) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a), (b), or (c) that:

(1) the bicycle was not being operated upon a public way at the time of the alleged offense; or

(2) for a first offense only, the person owns or has acquired a helmet for himself or his

passenger, whichever is applicable, prior to appearance in municipal court.

SEC. 9-8

Bicycle Helmet Required

4


6/29

Benefits of Helmet Legislation

Lower incidence of child mortality and bicycle-related head

injuries

Injury rates were about 20 percent lower in states with

helmet laws for minors.

Research regarding safety benefits to adults are mixed in their

results and this is an ongoing field of research

5

Note: Cited sources included in the Appendix


7/29

Detriments of Helmet Legislation

Deter bicycle use or cause helmeted cyclists to behave less carefully.

Helmet legislation does not change the rate of helmet use.

Helmet laws are likely to have a large unintended negative health

impact by discouraging cycling.

Helmets are unlikely to save a cyclist involved in a higher-speed

vehicle collision

Low-income citizens (who are more likely to use bicycles for

transportation) may not be able to afford to purchase bike helmets

Helmet law enforcement tends to target low-income minority

communities

6

Note: Cited sources included in the Appendix


8/29

Draft Helmet Ordinance Options

Option 1: Delete the helmet requirement entirely. No onewill be required to wear a bicycle helmet.

Option 2: Amend the ordinance to require bicycle helmets

for minors only. The helmet ordinance currently defines

minors as any person under 17 years of age.

7


9/29

SEC. 9-2

Bicycles Prohibited in Public Buildings

The proposed change is to remove this prohibition in an effort to encourage

more employees and the public to bicycle to work and public facilities.

8

No person shall carry, push, propel, or ride an assembled or

operable bicycle in any public building in the city.

(Adopted 6-12-1972)


10/29

Draft Bicycles Inside Public

Buildings Options Option 1: No change to the ordinance. Bicycles will still

be prohibited inside public buildings.

Option 2: Delete the ordinance entirely. Bicycles will be

allowed inside public buildings.

9


11/29

Discussion

10


12/29

Appendix, Bicycle Helmet Use

Requirements in Peer Cities and States

11

Dallas, TX All Ages

Seattle, WA All Ages

Vancouver, BC All Ages

Austin, TX Under 18Charlotte, NC Under 16

Chicago, IL Messengers Only

District of Columbia Under 16

Fort Worth, TX Under 18

Houston, TX Under 18New York, NY Under 13

No known State laws requiring

all age groups helmet use


13/29

Appendix, Ordinance No. 9-8

Prior ActionsCouncil Committee/

Commission

Action Date

Health, Youth, and Human Services

Committee

Requested a draft ordinance

requiring bicycle helmets for all

ages and one for under 17 years of

age

October 9, 1995

Public Safety Committee Briefed on the proposed ordinance

by the City Attorneys Office

December 4, 1995

Youth Commission Voted in opposition of proposed

ordinance, but in support of

bicycle training and education

December 14, 1995

12


14/29

Appendix

Prior ActionsCouncil Committee/Commission

Action Date

Human Services Commission Voted in favor of proposed all ages

ordinance

December 18, 1995


Committee & Youth CommissionJoint Public Hearing

Of the 73 people who spoke at the

public hearing: 44 Supported ordinance for all

ages

25 Supported ordinance for

persons under 17 years of age

4 Spoke in opposition to the

ordinance

January 23, 1996


Committee

Recommended that an open-age

ordinance be forwarded to the full

council with a recommendation for

approval; the full council would

determine the specific age group

February 12, 1996

13


15/29

Appendix

Prior ActionsCommittee/Council Action Date

City Council Briefing Staff briefing, summarized on

pages 14- 17

May 15, 1996

14


16/29

Appendix

Issues from Briefing Bicycle related head injuries and deaths were a serious public

health concern and a product of preventable accidents

In 1993 6,164 Texans died from accidents, 3,184 died from

motor vehicle accidents and 57 were killed while riding bicycles

In Dallas, 1994 and 1995 surveys indicated that the number ofcyclists who wore helmets averaged 5%23%

Only three cities in Texas had passed bicycle helmet ordinances

According to statistics, persons aged 0-19 have the highest

percentage of bicycle-related head injuries and deaths; persons60 and older have the second highest

15


17/29

Appendix

Issues from Briefing Concerned that:

A mandatory bicycle helmet ordinance would be difficult to enforce,

could result in minimal or selective enforcement, and could be

counterproductive to establishing positive community relationships

A mandated bicycle helmet ordinance may reduce bicycle ridership The ordinance seeks to legislate behavior for only one of the many

causes of head injuries

The cost of providing helmets for all of its bicycle riders may present

a serious burden to some families

In order to be effective, helmets must be properly fitted and worn

correctly

Conclusions from various studies were stated as being often

contradictory, confusing, inconclusive, and debatable due to

differences in interpretation and methodologies of data collection16


18/29

Appendix

Staff Recommendations (1996) Enhance the existing bicycle public education program

through the Dallas Police Department and the PWTs

Bicycle Coordinator

Collaborate with private businesses to define ways of reducing

the cost of helmets Develop incentives and ways to increase the use of bicycle

helmets

If a helmet ordinance were to be approved by council,

recommend that the ordinance mandate helmet use forpersons of all ages

17


19/29

Appendix

May 22, 1996 Council ActionMotions Option Details Details Continued Approval

Motion A Helmet required for

all

Voting Yes: 10

Voting No: 5

Motion B Helmet required for

under 17

Voting Yes: 4

Voting No: 11

Motion C No penalty forviolation

&

No notification

requirements of

bicycle dealers

Directed citymanager to develop

an education and

outreach plan; and to

provide a status

report to council

after twelve months

No Vote

Motion A and motion B both contained an amendment which required:

A dealer to have a sign conspicuously posted on the dealerspremises notifying all customers that

it is a city ordinance violation to operate or ride a bicycle without a helmet;

Require that a dealer may not lease a bicycle to a person without determining through physical

observation that a helmet is in the possession of each person who will operate or ride the bicycle

18


20/29


21/29

Appendix

Arguments FOR Bicycle Helmets Bicycle helmet safety laws are associated with lower incidence of child

mortality and bicycle-related head injuries when children are involved in

bicycle-motor vehicle collisions. (Meehan et al.(2013))

The Journal of Pediatrics published a study that analyzed statistics on U.S.bicyclists who were severely injured or killed between January 1999 and

December 2009. The authors compared the injury and death rates among

cyclists age 16 and younger in states with mandatory helmet laws for

youngsters to rates in states without such laws. The study concluded that

injury rates were about 20 percent lower in states with helmet laws.(Washington Post (June 2013) )

20


22/29

Appendix

Arguments AGAINST Bicycle Helmets Individualsshow compensatory health behavior (e.g. safer cycling without helmet) to

compensate for risky behavior.(Messerli-Brgyet al. (2013))

Injurisdictions where cycling is safe, a helmet law is likely to have a large unintended

negative health impact [increased morbidity due to foregone exercise from reduced

cycling]. In jurisdictions where cycling is relatively unsafe, helmets will do little to

make it safer and a helmet law, under relatively extreme assumptions, may make a smallpositive contribution to net societal health.(de Jong, P. (2012))

helmet laws are associated with reductions in bicycle-related head injuries among

children. [T]he observed reduction in bicycle-related head injuries may be due to

reductions in bicycle riding induced by the laws. (Markowitz, S. and Chatterji, P.

(2013)) The California statewide helmet law was enacted in 1994, and required all cyclists

under age 18 to be helmeted when riding a bicycleThe rate of helmet use did not

change after California legislation, and head injury remains a major source of

morbidity. Rates of abdominal injury over this time period did not change.(Castle et

al. (2012))21


23/29

Appendix

Arguments AGAINST Bicycle Helmets Helmet laws have been hypothesized to deter bicycle use or cause helmeted

cyclists to behave less carefully. (Constant and Lagarde (2010))

In the US, studies have shown that helmet legislation does not change the rate

of helmet use. (Castle et al. (2012))

Where cycling is safe, a helmet law is likely to have a large unintended

negative health impact by discouraging cycling. In jurisdictions where cycling

is relatively unsafe, helmets will do little to make it safer. (de Jong (2012))

22


24/29

Appendix

Conflicting Research Findings helmet laws are associated with reductions in bicycle-related head

injuries among children. [T]he observed reduction in bicycle-related head

injuries may be due to reductions in bicycle riding induced by the laws.

(Markowitz, S. and Chatterji, P. (2013))

Whenit comes to cyclists, a systematic review shows that helmet use results

on average in a 70% reduction in the risk of head injuries (Thompson et al.

(2000)), but its use is mandatory in a limited number of countries, and

encouraged in some. There is controversy over the relevance of mandatory

use, which has been hypothesized to be a deterrent to bicycle use or to causehelmeted cyclists to behave less carefully (Robinson et al. (2007)). More

research is needed in this area to assess how the local context may influence

the impact of helmet promotion and of coercive rules. (Constant and

Lagarde (2010))

23


25/29

References de Jong, P. (2012), The Health Impact of Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Laws. Risk Analysis, 32: 782790.

Persaud et al. (2012), Nonuse of bicycle helmets and risk of fatal head injury: a proportional mortality,

casecontrol study. Canadian Medical Association Journal, vol. 184, no. 17: E921-E923. Markowitz, S. and Chatterji, P. (2013), Effects of Bicycle Helmet Laws on Childrens Injuries. Health

Econ.

Meehan et al. (2013), Bicycle Helmet Laws Are Associated with a Lower Fatality Rate from Bicycle

Motor Vehicle Collisions. The Journal of Pediatrics, vol. 163, no. 3: 726729.

Castle et al. (2012). Bicycle Helmet Legislation and Injury Patterns in Trauma Patients Under Age 18.

Journal of Surgical Research, vol. 173, no. 2: 327331.

Bergenstal et al. (2012). Pediatric Bicycle Injury Prevention and the Effect of Helmet Use: The West

Virginia Experience. West Virginia Medical Journal, 108: 78-81.

Messerli-Brgy et al. (2013). The Influence of Self-efficacy and Compensatory Health Behavior in

Bicycle Helmet Use.Journal of Health Behavior and Public Health, vol. 3, no. 2.

Thompson et al. (2000) Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists. Cochrane DatabaseSyst Rev. 2000:CD001855.

Robinson DL. (2007) Bicycle helmet legislation: can we reach a consensus? Accid Anal Prev.

2007;39:8693.

Constant and Lagarde (2010). Protecting Vulnerable Road Users from Injury. PLoS Med. Mar 2010;

7(3): e1000228.24


26/29

The Dallas Trail NetworkMaster Plan was adopted in

2005

Updated in 2008

302 miles of trail identified inplan

Appendix Trail Network Master PlanStatus

Trail Status Miles

Completed Trails 130 miles

Funded Trails 44 miles

Unfunded Trails 128 miles

Estimated Cost: $192M(basic trail without amenities)

25

A di T il N k S


27/29

Completed Trails:

130 miles*

*Mileage estimate includes

neighborhood loop trails (not shown)

Appendix, Trail Network Status

Completed TrailsCompleted Trails

26

A di T il N k S


28/29

Funded Trails:

44 miles

Appendix, Trail Network Status

Funded Trails

Consisting of Trails:

Under Construction-

22.2 miles

Remaining to be built:

21.8 miles

27

Completed Trails

Remaining Funded

Trails

Trails Under

Construction


29/29

Appendix, Integrated Trail Circuit

28

Total Length: 141.5 miles

Trail Status Miles

Completed Trails 29.8 miles

Funded Trails 21.1 miles

Unfunded Trails 90.6 miles

Estimated Cost: $140M(basic trail without amenities)

bicycle use ordinance briefing

Documents